super hunters

There is room for a "philosophical" debate about the authority and the right we have to determine "who will be hunted", but when the licenses are also given to a predatory hunter the picture changes.

The media is flooded with more and more news about serious damage to the population of elephants and rhinos in Africa. Hunters who sell the tusks of elephants and rhinoceros horns finance terrorist activities with profits.

According to unofficial sources in Kenya, in 1960 there were about 20,000 rhinos in Kenya and today their number stands at about 1,000 individuals. In 1960 there were about 150,000 elephants in Kenya and today there are only about 30,000 individuals (up from 20,000 individuals in 1980).

The decrease in the number of animals, as well as the relative supervision, means that most of the ivory and horn cargoes caught in Mombasa come from neighboring countries such as Sudan or Congo.

The USA and the European Union are allocating special budgets to attempts to stop the trend and prevent the extinction of the two species that for many symbolize natural Africa. However, along with the wild hunter there is a licensed hunter. Licenses to hunt wild animals are sold to the highest bidder.

In the past I have already referred to the need for nature management, which results from the impact of human activity also on remote and isolated protected areas and reserves. The wind that spreads pollutants has no boundaries, so do migratory birds, insects and others that do not consider the "boundaries" set by people.

Due to negative effects, the need to thin out populations also arises, which is done by issuing licenses to hunt certain and marked species and individuals. This is how the need arose to thin out the moose population in Yellowstone Park, but it turned out that the need arose due to the wild and licensed hunting of wolves. After the wolves were returned to the reserve they were the ones who maintained proper levels of herbivores.
There are countries, mainly in South Africa, that allow hunting for high sums of money, most of which are directed to conservation. In Namibia, the number of elephants increased from about 5,000 in the 10,000s to 750 individuals today. The number of rhinos was doubled from 1,500 to XNUMX. Numbers that allow individual hunting permits each year. For example, a tender for a rhino poacher (one) is published these days and it is estimated that the winner will pay about a million dollars. The entire money will be directed to finance nature conservation activities.

There is room for a "philosophical" debate about the authority and the right we have to determine "who will be hunted", but when the licenses are also given to a predatory hunter the picture changes. And again, according to the data, there were about 20,000 lions in Kenya in the seventies and today there are about 2,000. In Uganda lions are poisoned by farmers, in Zimbabwe elephants are poisoned, and these severely harm the populations and endanger their existence.
To prevent harm, funding is needed and one of the forms is the sale of permits to hunters. The question arises, is there a difference between granting permits to herbivorous hunters who are also hunted in the wild, and granting permits to super carnivore hunters?

It is a well-known and accepted fact that today man is the super predator, above all other large predators, people have hunted super predators since time immemorial, this as a defense against their attack, as an elimination of competition, or as a display of bravery and courage. In new eras, super carnivores were also hunted and captured for display in circuses and zoos, and again today, rich "heroes" purchase hunting permits for the purpose - trophy hunting, with the loot displayed and in photos that are supposed to prove the hunters' bravery and prowess.

In the legends of the peoples of the "West" the "big and evil wolf" (or the dragon) always appears, and anyone who has walked in an area where there are lions knows the feeling of fear. All the legends and initial feelings do not justify a hunter in general or a super carnivore hunt in particular. The justification for hunting comes from the approach that says that hunting a predatory number will be a means of saving and preserving the species.
is that so ?

According to a study published inBiological Conservation. A different picture is obtained than the conventional one: a hunter of large carnivores may give an impetus to the numerical growth of the carnivore population, but also causes a change in their ecological position in the environmental system. A super predator that is in danger of being hunted must always be alert for fear of a human hunter, meaning that it is no longer the strongest in its environment, a situation that is reflected in the entire environment.

Human hunters know that hunted that are herbivores, change their behavior according to their presence, the same goes for predators. In areas where there was a bear hunter, the bears switched to nocturnal activity. Anyone who has been on "safari" in East Africa knows that the cheetahs have changed their hunting habits and instead of hunting in the cool morning hours when travelers bother them, the cheetahs have shifted their hunting activities to the hot afternoon hours (then the travelers in the lodge).

The change obviously makes it more difficult for the hunters and therefore harms the population's ability to exist. Wolves are known to change the location of their litters to get away from people, as are lions, tigers and other predators who are harassed not only by hunters but also by curious hikers.
These changes create in those who were super predators a sense of fear. That is, instead of being in a place where their prey, the herbivores, will be afraid of the super predators, a situation is created in which the predators spend more time and energy being alert and cautious of the new super predator in the field. They lack vigilance and vigor in hunting activities and thus the efficiency of "thinning" the herbivore populations decreases. In other words, the presence of a new super hunter harms the natural role of the predators.

Another negative effect stems from the common approach in which the hunters of more mature predators, especially mature males, are usually allowed. This approach results in selection that favors smaller, less aggressive predators, so much so that, according to researchers, bear hunting in Europe has resulted in European bears being smaller and less aggressive than their American brethren (despite being the same species).

Moreover, the phenomenon of infanticide is common among many predators. When the father is big and strong no other male will approach his family. But it turns out that because of hunting permits for lions in Africa, a situation has arisen in which a large male "gets out" of the system. His place will be taken by a young male who will first kill all the newborns and then deal with raising a new generation, but since he is young he is not big enough to protect his family from other males and so even before the members of the new generation grow up, their father will be expelled and they will be killed and so God forbid it will happen again. This process prevents population recovery.

Let's recall that a similar process took place with the tigers of the Judean Desert when, in the XNUMXs, fertile females were removed from the system and the males in the field killed each other's offspring until the population disappeared. Elsewhere I referred to the systematic extermination of wolves in the Golan, which resulted in the proliferation of jackals. The researchers do not recommend banning the hunter, but call on the conservationists and its keepers to think about creating large areas designated for large predators where the predators can be predators without fear of human hunters, and in particular trophy hunting should be banned where the big and beautiful are hunted.
‫‬
It is appropriate and correct that beyond the number of predators, the impact on the entire ecosystem will be calculated.